Lorely Burt: Yes, and there is a plan to make some improvements to the rest of Shirley park. I am not sure whether there will be trees involved, but there will certainly be park improvements, which we are all looking forward to seeing. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, however.
	Clause 6 is brief and requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local planning authorities to include appropriate protection for large or mature trees within planning guidance legislation.
	The second part of my Bill is similar to the ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), which covers the practice that has become known as garden grabbing. I am delighted to support his Bill, which was introduced almost a year after mine. I am not aware that either he or any of his Conservative colleagues have supported mine to date, although the supportive comments from hon. Members on the Conservative Benches today would tend to contradict that, and I am grateful to them for their support.
	Clause 3 looks at the planning guidelines that designate back gardens as brownfield sites. If it has not become apparent already, I must tell the House that I am no planning expert. To my simple mind, however, a garden is usually green, not brown. The intention of the planning guidelines is to ensure that brownfield sites are developed first. That is highly commendable, but the unintended consequences of designating gardens as brownfield sites can be seen all over Solihull, and in many other places. Developers see a relatively easy and cheap opportunity in an area where house values are high. They knock down a lovely old house with a big garden and build a block of flats—oops, sorry, I mean luxury apartments—in its stead.
	Some people have accused me of nimbyism, because I am suggesting that building dense developments literally in someone's back yard is not desirable. They could be right. After all, we need affordable homes, and we need lots of them. However, these so-called luxury apartments are not affordable homes. They are expensive, because developers want to maximise profits, and our council, at least, is failing to reach the affordable homes targets set by the Government.

Nigel Evans: I am not so sure. If there are buildings in the parkland, they would already be considered as brownfield development. With planning permission, the buildings could be converted, but the Bill is looks to protect the parkland, trees and open spaces rather than the buildings currently within the parkland.

Nigel Evans: In that case, I hope the local authority will think again. If it goes ahead with the development, I hope that it will be imaginative and find a way of preserving the tree.
	On suburban and urban issues, I have sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). The provisions must allow for flexibility in areas that are exposed to gales and hurricanes, where trees may be endangered, even on farmers' fields. They must be careful to ensure that anything dangerous is dealt with or they could become liable. Local authorities would be in the same position. Although it is subject to interpretation, any legislation must be flexible enough to allow them to deal with it.
	We should be more imaginative about the ways in which we conserve and preserve trees. Where trees must be felled to make way for development, the developer should be obliged to replace a tree that is felled with a number of other trees, to ensure that the environment is not damaged. We can consider the Bill in detail upstairs in Committee. Clearly it needs further attention, and we will all want to table amendments, but at least let us give it the chance of going into Committee. I congratulate the hon. Lady.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification, but it will not do. It could be an area with one tree on it—or perhaps two trees—that was being sold, and that could be part of a much bigger piece of parkland. In such circumstances, the hon. Lady might like to think about whether this provision might allow development "bite and hold", nibbling away a bit at a time. Therefore, I wonder whether the hon. Lady ought to be looking at this matter a little more broadly—although perhaps not as broadly as my more extreme suggestion. There is a problem in that regard.
	The second provision in the clause is otiose. Why does subsection (1)(b) state,
	"which may (but need not) be of particular landscape of historic significance"?
	That either is or is not a relevant factor, and if it is neither, it should not be in the Bill, because if it is included, that will simply create money for members of my former profession, who will argue about what those words mean. They are otiose. The hon. Lady either wants this provision included or she does not, but she cannot have it both in and out at the same time, which effectively is what the subsection proposes.
	To move on, the phrases "public garden" and "purposes of public recreation" are relatively straightforward, but what exactly does "a disused burial ground" mean? Often, large parts of burial grounds are disused while other parts some distance away are used. In that context, let me refer back to my experience on Westminster city council. Most people are aware of the appalling scandal of the Lady Porter regime—one of its first scandals—when it sold three cemeteries for 5p each, and the asset stripping that came with that. Coincidentally, although Westminster city council owned the cemeteries, two of them were situated in the London borough of Barnet—one of them in my constituency, and another in the neighbouring constituency of Finchley and Golders Green.
	If we are to dispose of such cemeteries, this question arises: who will be consulted as part of a referendum? The relatives of people buried in the cemetery? Westminster council tax payers, who own the cemeteries that are being disposed of? London borough of Barnet residents, where the cemeteries are situated? I would have been happy with any of those options, if they had been in force at the time when Lady Porter decided to sell off the cemeteries.

Andrew Dismore: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I was just coming to the end of that point, as I realised that my digression through history and the byways and highways would make you somewhat unhappy, although, sadly, I think that it has some relevance to the modern world.
	As we try to square the circle of protecting the green belt and providing the necessary housing, some of the suggestions to resolve development and zoning problems are becoming progressively wackier. The most bizarre suggestion came in the summer from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said that we should reclaim and sell underwater land to developers, which would encompass
	"a mighty city called Thames Reach"
	being built in the east Thames corridor. Venice is sinking, and the Tory party housing policy is also sinking fast if it is based on what he has in mind.
	To return to the specifics of the Bill, the hon. Member for Solihull needs to think a little more about clause 3. I do not object to her intention to protect greenfield back gardens, but we need to be more precise about the language and thresholds used, and perhaps provide some countervailing argument in relation to housing need. As I said in my opening remarks, on the one hand she is trying to adopt a localising policy in relation to a referendum, while on the other hand the clause is very centralising, and contains no provision to take account of local circumstances and local needs. It is just too prescriptive. That brings me back to my earlier point that the Bill is a little too ambitious. I am not sure which hon. Gentleman initially proposed the Bill to deal just with this one issue; I spoke in support of that Bill in principle at the time, although with some reservations about the wording. To achieve the right balance, however, a self-contained Bill with more than one clause dealing with all the different aspects is required.
	On clause 4 and the right to appeal against granted planning permission, the hon. Lady has hit on an interesting subject. People in my constituency get very cross when the Conservative-controlled council gives planning consent to projects that, frankly, it should not allow. Other than judicial review, which is virtually impossible in planning cases—rather than the cost, the law itself gets in the way, as the test is so high—local communities have no remedy whatever to challenge decisions of local planning authorities. With regard to clause 1, that is particularly so where the development is one in which the local authority may be involved, as in the case of the schemes in my constituency that I mentioned, and it is giving itself planning consent to do its own thing. Where is the check and balance in the democratic process to control a local authority giving itself planning consent? At the moment, there is none, other than the Secretary of State's call-in powers, or perhaps the new extended powers that will go to the London Mayor. Those powers are a very blunt instrument to deal with an issue that might not merit such huge attention, and they are very hit and miss, as the Secretary of State, with the best will in the world, will not involve himself in an issue that is relatively small beer nationally, although it might be a big concern locally. The hon. Lady needs to work harder on the wording. There are all sorts of different development plans, and all sorts of sub-plans, such as area action plans. Some work on definitions is therefore needed.
	In addition, who is permitted to object to the application? That is where I bring in my concerns under the Human Rights Act. As the hon. Lady might know, I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, although my Committee has not considered her Bill—which I suspect she is not surprised to hear—so I am speaking from my immediate impressions rather than from any considered legal analysis. I would be concerned, however, about whether the clause engages article 1 of the first protocol of part 2 on protection of property. Does it affect property rights in a way that may contravene the Human Rights Act? I asked her earlier—I suspect that the answer is no—whether she had had her Bill monitored or proof-read, as it were, for compliance with the Act. If it does not comply with the Human Rights Act, the House has no business passing it.
	The reason that I raise this issue is that several conflicting property rights are involved. There is the question of proportionality, which the Human Rights Act reflects, as well as the property rights of the person who owns the land that will be developed, perhaps the property rights of the shareholders of the company that owns it, and the property rights of people who may not be on the land but whose house prices may be affected by a development. All those conflicting aspects have to be taken into account when such measures are proposed.
	Again, there is the question of a society "sufficiently representing" local amenity interests. All our constituencies have effective and well-established amenity groups. For instance, my constituency has the Mill Hill Preservation Society, an active group that considers such issues, and I pay tribute to its sterling work and the money that it sometimes has to raise to fight appalling planning applications which it seems the local authority might permit or it sometimes has to raise on appeal. I have no doubt that it is representative of the local community, and 100 or more people turn up to its annual meetings. We also know, however, as we are all politicians, that it is often relatively easy to set up behind the scenes a front organisation for a political party or for a small group of people in order to hijack an organisation if it is not well attended and effective. I would be concerned at growth in such front organisations or in the hijacking of organisations, which the hon. Lady's Bill as it stands might provoke. Will she explain how she would define a society that sufficiently represents local amenity interests?
	There is also the question of how a local amenity is to be defined. There could be differences of view. I agree with the hon. Lady in principle about the need to allow appeals against planning consent if it is obviously contrary to planning guidance and local authority planning policies, however they may be expressed in whichever document, but she should tighten the definition of those who are entitled to object. If we are not careful, the planning inspectorate, which is already bogged down with appeals against refusals, will become bogged down with appeals against consents as well.
	The right to appeal should exist, although I hope it will never be used. It might cause those who make planning decisions to be a little more careful about what they say, and a little more considerate of local feeling, which is often overlooked. In particular, constraints imposed by the Standards Board for England suggest that councillors representing particular wards should not participate in the planning process, which strikes me as an Alice in Wonderland approach to planning. Wherever that approach originated, it needs to be sorted out. In my view, someone who has been elected to represent an area should be able to speak out on behalf of his or her constituents, whatever the Standards Board may say. If that is against Government policy, so be it. I feel quite strongly on the subject.

Andrew Slaughter: I fear that I shall be less complimentary about the Bill than some of my hon. Friends. There is nothing wrong with its principle. Indeed, I applaud it, and there is not an hon. Member who would fail to approve the principle of maintaining public open space. Conservative Members have characterised their party as one of low taxation—I would argue that it is therefore a party of poor services—and I hope that our party is one of minimal, light-touch legislation. I therefore believe that the Bill which, for the most part, is fussy and nannyish, is largely unnecessary.
	I was going to confine myself to clause 3, but I shall illustrate my point with brief reference to other clauses. How widespread, for example, is the evil that clause 1 is designed to address? I applaud the wording of clause 1(1)(a), which refers to
	"scattered mature or ancient trees overlying pasture or arable land".
	That is pastoral if not Arcadian language, and I compliment the hon. Member for Solihull on her drafting skills. I do not have a great deal of pastoral land in my constituency, with the exception of the area around Wormwood Scrubs, which enjoys the protection of statute and, more importantly the Army, which exercises there, but there is some open space. Because my constituency is densely populated, such space is rare, so it is even more precious than it is to the constituents of hon. Members who have large areas of open space in their constituencies. In the past 30 years, I can recall only one successful attempt to build on parkland. Inevitably, it was a Conservative council that decided for reasons that are now lost in the mists of time to construct town houses on the edge of the beautiful Victorian Ravenscourt park just outside my constituency. It was a sin and a crime, and the council were soon thrown out for that and many other offences. The case for legislation is debatable, because over the years I have discovered that popular opposition to such schemes is easily mobilised, particularly with the advent of better means of communication such as the net.
	Like a number of hon. Members, I am not a fan of referendums, partly because the public are not fans, and turnout is often lamentably low. If referendums are to be part of our constitutional structure, they should be reserved for major constitutional issues, as has been the case in the past. We have held referendums on the then common market and on devolution, and we may hold one on the euro in future. A referendum on the sale of land is, however, too specialised. Unfortunately, for the first time in 20 years, there is a Conservative council in one of the boroughs in my constituency. In the past four weeks, it has decided to close one of the largest schools in the borough without proper consultation, to sack every home help and to tear up the affordable rented housing programme. All those issues are as important to my constituents as the issue raised by the hon. Lady.
	Are we to have referendums on every issue that comes up locally? Is that not something that we are all familiar with the Liberal Democrats doing—changing their mind about deciding when they want to use one route and when they want to use another? Having elected a local authority, for good or ill, there are other ways to put pressure on it than constant resort to referendums, which might not have a great deal of validity, as we have seen from some voluntary referendums on raising tax levels.
	Equally, in relation to clause 5 and the points made about trees, which featured a lot earlier in the debate, there are tree preservation orders as well as well-laid-down regulations and local authority powers to protect trees. I agree that those are abused—often, if not by local authorities, then by developers—but it is my submission that the remedy, again, is in process, not corrective legislation.
	To come to clause 3, which is perhaps the clearest in the Bill, I fear that the hon. Member for Solihull is being led up the garden path by the Conservative party. Before the long recess, I took part in an Opposition day debate—I do not know whether she did so too—but I found that debate quite surreal. If I recall correctly, only the day before the debate was held the subject was changed from general housing policy to the narrow and specific issue of, as it is put, building on back gardens.
	I found that a peculiar choice of subject for a reason that might inform and help the hon. Lady in considering whether she wants to proceed with the Bill. Contrary to what the Conservative party has said, the classification of back gardens as brownfield land originated in 1985, under a Conservative Administration. Indeed, as late as 1992, planning guidance said:
	"Homes with large back gardens are a common feature in many urban, suburban and village areas. Sometimes it may be acceptable to develop back gardens for new housing which is in keeping with the character and quality of the local environment."
	Since the Labour Government were elected in 1997, development on previously residential land—that, of course, is not back gardens, but could be the footprint of a house or another property—has dropped dramatically. In 1986, the proportion of ordinary dwellings built on previously residential land stood at 26 per cent., whereas it was down to 15 per cent. in 2004. The hare has been set running, but by the people responsible for the original offence, and that offence has been largely addressed.
	If the hon. Member for Solihull intends to pursue the clause, I must return to the point that I made during an intervention. There is a well tried and trusted planning process in this country, although it is not always reliable because organisations and human beings are fallible. It is largely delegated to local authority level and subject to checks—not principally at Secretary of State level, but at planning inspectorate level. Any scheme that flies in the face of what the locally elected representatives and local residents want has a poor chance of succeeding.
	It is a myth that, willy-nilly, any developer or householder can make a quick buck without any reference to the planning authority. Of course, that would not be the case if the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had his way and Conservative party policy changed to allow that untrammelled development, but only untrammelled development for post-1945 properties, because, presumably, that does not matter. I do not know how many post-1945 properties there are in some of the leafier and coastal constituencies around the country, but there are quite a lot in my constituency, such as the South Acton estate, the largest housing estate in west London, which is subject to substantial redevelopment plans. The incoming Conservative council in Ealing seems intent on pursuing a substantial intensification of density and use of that estate, including taking away much of the green land. The estate is unique in the sense that although many people live there and it is large, it has some very pleasant green areas. Those are likely to disappear if the Conservative council has its way with its development plan.
	I do not hold the hon. Lady responsible for the Conservative party facing two ways. I am simply asking her to be careful. As my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) illustrated, although on the one hand the Conservatives appear to be fully in support of the Bill, on the other the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal is in favour of unrestricted planning. Presumably, to trump that, we have the proposal by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for cities in the sea. In fairness to him, I read the report on that in the  Financial Times, and although my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon correctly gave the right hon. Gentleman's view that the country could solve its flooding and housing shortage problems by building Venice-style "cities in the sea" along the Thames estuary and the fens, according to the report
	"Under the plan, sea walls and defences to protect the two new cities would be built using money raised from reclaiming and selling the underwater land to property developers."
	The right hon. Gentleman calls that a "bold vision", which encompasses a
	"'mighty city called Thames Reach'"—
	I began to get visions of Ozymandias at that point—
	"being built in the water in the east Thames corridor, with up to 50,000"
	homes. He stressed that
	"the proposal was his own and has not been endorsed by members of his policy group...He admitted the prospect of concreting over sections of the sea would be controversial",
	which may or may not be right.
	I referred to that article for two reasons. First, as a warning to the hon. Lady—although I am sure that she does not need a warning from me—to be careful with whom she shares her platform. Secondly, because there may be more roguish elements of overdevelopment to which she could turn her attention. I do not seek to associate her with the unrestricted-development wing of the Conservative party, but I fear that there is a danger not only of encumbering the statute book with overwrought legislation, but also of tarring her party with the same brush that has blotted the record of the Conservative party.
	I do not want to repeat what I said in the debate before the summer recess, but when I thought about and puzzled over why, at the last moment, the Conservative party changed from a general debate on housing policy, on which there is much to be said, to a narrow debate about back gardens, I concluded that it was because of, for want of a better term, dog-whistle politics. When there is such a degree of housing need, which I am sure is as true in the hon. Lady's constituency as it is in my own, of all types—including the intermediate market and, in particular, affordable and social rented housing—we need to consider the signal that is sent on that, whether by the Conservative party or the Liberal party. The central and crucial issue is, in fact, a non-issue, and the Labour Government have addressed the possible designation of back gardens as brownfield sites. If we say, however wrongly, that that is the key issue in housing policy, what that says to me and my constituents who are living in overcrowded conditions, who are on housing waiting lists or who cannot get their first foot on the property ladder is: we do not want to build; we want to stop building, wherever possible.
	I am not saying that that was the hon. Lady's intention in drafting the Bill or that particular clause, but I highlight the danger of her and her party becoming tarred with the same brush—one of accelerated NIMBY-ism and a callous disregard for those who are in housing need. I acknowledge that that is not the hon. Lady's intention and I applaud the principle of the Bill, but I believe that we do not need it.

Phil Woolas: Required reading by me, yes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) spoke well and gave principled and practical reasons why he thought the Bill was, in his words, unnecessary. He did the House a service by pointing out that although it is right not to live in the past, it is useful to draw lessons from the past where relevant. It is the case that, as a proportion of new houses, more houses were built in gardens in the 1980s than are built in gardens now. That is a fact, and facts are stubborn things.
	The question was asked whether the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. I take guidance from you on these matters, Madam Deputy Speaker. The rules of the House are that Government Bills must get the certificate, as it were, prior to coming before the House. Of course, private Members' Bills are open to examination by the relevant Committee. Common sense dictates that as a private Member's Bill progresses through the House, that would have to be considered. When I voted for the Human Rights Act, however, I was more worried about Nazi persecution than about some of the matters that are assigned to the Act in public debate. I think that I best not go further into that subject.
	How could I neglect to mention the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a thoughtful speech? As hon. Members will know, his constituency is one of the most beautiful in the country, so he is familiar with preservation of green spaces, parks and so on. He raised some interesting points from a non-partisan angle.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) spoke well and with knowledge. He made the important point that a scout hut or some other such public amenity being built in a park would have to be considered in a completely different category from, say, an Asda supermarket. That point reflects the difficulties of drawing the boundaries, whether in law or planning guidance. Were there to be a referendum in his constituency on whether the council should be allowed to grant planning application for a scout hut, my guess is that the turnout would be low and that the result would be an overwhelming yes. He also drew our attention to the potential paradoxes or dilemmas relating to local authorities making planning applications for their own buildings. He indicated that he thought that his civic building was not exactly one for the world heritage list. I invite him to the north-west of England to see our beautiful Victorian buildings. He does, however, make a good point.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East also made a plea for the unitaries not to be forgotten. It is important to note that the designated title of unitary council does not include all those that in common language are described as unitaries, such as metropolitan boroughs. As the Minister for Local Government, I am well aware of that category of councils properly called unitaries. I have a little reminder in my notebook not to forget them. How could I, given their prominence and importance in our public life? I therefore genuinely thank him for his thoughtful comments.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) spoke well too, and posed some dilemmas to the House. He said—I think I quote him accurately—that "local people know best" for their area, and that there was a case for parishes having planning powers. Parishes, of course, are statutory consultees but have no powers. One could make a case for localised decisions at parish level. However, as was said by one of Oldham's Conservative councillors—we still have one or two, or one, I think, at the moment—with regard to Liberal Democrat policies for my area, we all know that Liberal Democrats have a policy for every street but none for the borough. That is the problem with localism taken too far. Were planning left entirely to local authorities, I doubt whether the United Kingdom would ever have had an airport, a railway or any other parts of our infrastructure.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Lady for explaining why this is such a hot issue. I understand that, and I have constituents who have said it to me, but if she will allow me to finish my argument we might have a better understanding of the situation.
	The Government's intention, when they publish the final PPS3 later this year, is that the new policy will strengthen the emphasis in current policy on the quality and design of buildings and their neighbouring environment, and reinforce the need for all development to be in suitable locations.
	Selective small-scale redevelopment of houses and back gardens, carefully planned, can contribute—I emphasise, can contribute—to achieving a better housing mix and help to meet housing needs, so long as the new development, for example, complements the neighbouring and wider locality in terms of nature and scale, is suitable, and is of good-quality design. However, that does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that all back gardens are suitable for development. Defining a garden as brownfield does not bring with it in planning policy a presumption that the garden should be developed.
	As well as local planning authorities being able to turn down inappropriate back garden development because it is of poor design or inappropriate to the local area, a wide range of other matters need to be considered in deciding whether to allocate land for housing and whether to grant planning approvals. The range of matters includes the location and accessibility of the sites and the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure—a point made by many hon. Members many times. That includes social infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, which residents often raise with us.
	We also need to be clear about the facts. It is certainly true that the Government have increased the emphasis on the use of brownfield land. Environment groups and Members of Parliament on both sides of the House welcomed that policy. It clearly makes sense to develop on brownfield sites instead of greenfield sites. We believe—there is strong evidence for this—that as a result of those policies, in part, there has been a renaissance in our towns and cities, with the regeneration of many abandoned industrial sites and a substantial reduction in the amount of greenfield land needed for development.
	According to the Urban Task Force, 90 people lived in Manchester city centre in 1990. That figure today is 25,000. That is a direct and indirect result of planning policy changes. There are other examples, and I am sorry if I am being Mancunian-selfish. I should, of course, talk about Britain's third city, Birmingham, where a similar story could be described.  [Interruption.] I move quickly on as the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe), heard what I said.
	I want to draw attention to the serious fact mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush. I do so not just to show the historical importance of the figures, but to ensure that the debate is informed. The proportion of homes built on greenfield land has fallen from 44 per cent. in 1997 to 26 per cent. today. That is linked to what the hon. Member for Beckenham said about density and increasing the density of population in non-greenfield areas.
	For the benefit of the House, let me emphasise that the pressure on housing development is almost entirely due to demographic changes rather than population changes. The policies of the Conservative party are contradictory. On the one hand, at a macro level, it recognises the need for housing supply based on demographic changes such as people living longer, higher levels of divorce and people getting married later in life. Those pressures are real, and at a macro level the Conservatives seem to welcome the need to increase housing, just as the Conservative Governments of 1955 and the early 1960s did. However, when it comes to the rub, they object to it at a local level.

Lorely Burt: With the leave of the House, I shall make a few brief points, so that we can move on to another important Bill that is worthy of discussion. Before I go through some of the comments that Members have made, I want to say a big thank you to every Member who has taken the time and trouble to be in the Chamber on a Friday to discuss this important Bill. I am very grateful for all the constructive remarks made on both sides of the House.
	The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) described the Bill as flawed but amendable in Committee. I took great heart from that. He raised important points, which should be taken into consideration, about the land covered by the measure and about public sector land. He also drew attention to the fact that trees outside urban and suburban areas but in non-rural areas were not covered by the Bill. We should consider including a provision on that point.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was enormously helpful and made many good points, especially about referendums. His suggestion that a referendum should be triggered by a specific number of signatures is worth thinking about and could be developed. Like other Members, he made some helpful comments about costs. His proposal to minimise costs by holding the referendum, whenever possible, while another election was taking place was well received.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) also mentioned costs and said that there should be a pre-regulation cost assessment. I entirely agree, but I did not want to tie up civil servants' time by producing a lot of costings before the Bill went into Committee, because of the costs involved in doing so. The hon. Gentleman asked why clause 5 specified a change from two to three years and suggested that it would be better for the Secretary of State to have the power to vary the time. On reflection, I think it probably would be better. He mentioned the short time period within which the measure would come into force. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley helpfully pointed out that the Secretary of State could have the power to vary the timescale, which would be helpful.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) accused me of facing two ways—a criticism rarely levelled at a Liberal Democrat. He said that I seek both to empower and to impose. I probably have to plead guilty, because the Bill would empower and impose, where necessary, at different stages of the process.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), who is no longer in the Chamber, felt that the scope of the Bill was too wide. On reflection, I agree. He thought that the garden-grabbing Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was better and more thought-out than my Bill. It is indeed more thought-out and has more detail, and I am happy to commend that, but it was introduced almost a year before my Bill.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East wanted more detail about the oak tree that I was talking about, and asked whether people would have to travel 30 miles to shop at a supermarket. In fact, there are already six supermarkets on the high street, so that is no reason to fell the oak trees. Like the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, he referred to "friends of parks" and said that there were many such groups. I agree that friends of parks do excellent work; the Bill would merely strengthen their hand.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) felt that the measure was a non-issue and that we do not particularly need such legislation, but tens of thousands of people in England, and especially in Wales, would disagree. He seems to think that local wishes will prevail and that it will all turn out right in the end, but the examples that I have outlined would tend to contradict that optimistic view.
	The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and others accused me of wanting central Government to impose more on local people and on local authorities. I shall go back and scrutinise the Bill and see where I am seeking to do that, because that was not my intention at all. As Liberal Democrats, our view is that all decision making should be as close as possible to the people who will be affected by it.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) wanted to know whether any alternative space had been provided by the local authority. I have to inform her that, sadly, as far as I am aware, no other space is being offered to replace the 3 acres of parkland.  [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shouts from a sedentary position.

BOROUGH FREEDOM (FAMILY SUCCESSION) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

BISHOPS (CONSECRATION OF WOMEN) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEREGULATION) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CORRUPTION BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SCOTLAND (OIL AND GAS RESOURCES) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

GREEN BELT REFORM BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE AND DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (ANTI-CORRUPTION AUDIT) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ENERGY BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SALE OF GREEN BELT LAND BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ST. GEORGE'S DAY BILL

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CARAVAN SITES (SECURITY OF TENURE) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

INFRASTRUCTURE AUDIT (HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PRISON REFORM (MENTAL HEALTH) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

IDENTIFICATION AND SUPPORT OF CARERS (PRIMARY HEALTH CARE) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PROTECTION OF RUNAWAY AND MISSING CHILDREN BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PROTECTION OF PRIVATE GARDENS (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT) BILL

CARE OF OLDER AND INCAPACITATED PEOPLE (HUMAN RIGHTS) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FIREWORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

REGISTRATION SERVICE BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FOOD LABELLING BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SAMURAI SWORDS BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.